Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:03:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
To: Doug Barton <DougB@simplenet.com>
Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: minor heads up - /etc/make.conf{,.local} being moved
Message-ID: <199911021703.JAA51793@apollo.backplane.com>
References: <199910271928.MAA35915@apollo.backplane.com> <381F1722.3F85DA1@simplenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:> sent to the CVS meisters to get /usr/src/etc/make.conf moved.
:>
:> make will dump out with an appropriate error and instructions if you
:> update your source tree and still have an /etc/make.conf.local.
:
: I like this change (kind of) but is it really necessary to cause make
:to exit if there is a make.conf.local? Why not have it read all 3? One
:of the things we talked about at the 'Con was that a three tiered system
:works well for rc.conf when you have a lot of machines sharing similar
:configuration details, but with some unique elements present on each
:machine. Perhaps I'm missing something, but how can make.conf.local be a
:bad thing?
:
:Doug
I think it is necessary to make it exit for now, because what we are
really doing is a net-0 gain in files... turning what used to be
functionality in /etc/make.conf.local into /etc/make.conf. The intent is
not to add a third file. If the intent were to add a third configuration
file then, sure, we could allow all three. But that isn't my intent.
I am somewhat worried that people upgrading from 3.x to 4.x will get
confused if that error message is not in there.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199911021703.JAA51793>